Our Own Devices
Edward Tenner - Our Own Devices
This is, in effect, a history of what we consider everyday items - lounge chairs, running shoes, eyeglasses, keyboards, helmets. And what kind of things we have had to learn to use them properly.
New technologies may have physical effects - like developing certain muscle groups at the expense of others and forcing eyes (and face) to adjust to lenses of the new eyeglasses. And especially learning new skills, even if it were just how to sit in the supposedly comfy chair.
In effect, new technologies require learning new skills (and sometimes developing new muscle groups). Teaching fast touch-typing became a whole industry - even if the QWERTY-keyboard was originally designed to slow down the typing speed… (I learned my typing in the prime school.)
Tenner does write about everyday items but he does not state only the obvious. Baby has to use different techniques to suckle the nipple and the bottle. Different kind of footwear leads to different kind of walking styles - and different kind of foot problems.
Tenner claims that the easier musical keyboard failed commercially because the pianists believed that difficult passages should remain difficult. I don't necessarily agree. Comparison may be questionable but this reminded me of one-hand typewriters that were marketed when I was a kid. They did not become popular either, and I think I know why.
Using the one-hand "keyboard" would have required learning dozens of different kind of fingering combinations to produce the desired letters. Only the accordion players might have had some kind of advantage… Even those who don't learn touch-typing are able to use the regular typewriter (and modern-day computer keyboards) because they can see the letters.
The traditional musical keyboard may also be a bit more intuitive than its supposed replacement.
However, how many "improvements" of athletic shoes are superficial and/or cosmetic? I also wonder how much improvement it would take before better equipment would be regarded as "mechanical doping"? One walker has already been disqualified from paralympics because his prosthetic leg is much better than the original one. Tenner does mention runners who would rather run barefoot…
I'm used to tying my shoes in a certain way. On the other foot, I had to concentrate on whether the shoe fit or not. Regardless of what they looked like.
As for my experience with helmets, well... During my military service I had to use a bit too small a uniform. What do you think my helmet felt like?
This is, in effect, a history of what we consider everyday items - lounge chairs, running shoes, eyeglasses, keyboards, helmets. And what kind of things we have had to learn to use them properly.
New technologies may have physical effects - like developing certain muscle groups at the expense of others and forcing eyes (and face) to adjust to lenses of the new eyeglasses. And especially learning new skills, even if it were just how to sit in the supposedly comfy chair.
In effect, new technologies require learning new skills (and sometimes developing new muscle groups). Teaching fast touch-typing became a whole industry - even if the QWERTY-keyboard was originally designed to slow down the typing speed… (I learned my typing in the prime school.)
Tenner does write about everyday items but he does not state only the obvious. Baby has to use different techniques to suckle the nipple and the bottle. Different kind of footwear leads to different kind of walking styles - and different kind of foot problems.
Tenner claims that the easier musical keyboard failed commercially because the pianists believed that difficult passages should remain difficult. I don't necessarily agree. Comparison may be questionable but this reminded me of one-hand typewriters that were marketed when I was a kid. They did not become popular either, and I think I know why.
Using the one-hand "keyboard" would have required learning dozens of different kind of fingering combinations to produce the desired letters. Only the accordion players might have had some kind of advantage… Even those who don't learn touch-typing are able to use the regular typewriter (and modern-day computer keyboards) because they can see the letters.
The traditional musical keyboard may also be a bit more intuitive than its supposed replacement.
However, how many "improvements" of athletic shoes are superficial and/or cosmetic? I also wonder how much improvement it would take before better equipment would be regarded as "mechanical doping"? One walker has already been disqualified from paralympics because his prosthetic leg is much better than the original one. Tenner does mention runners who would rather run barefoot…
I'm used to tying my shoes in a certain way. On the other foot, I had to concentrate on whether the shoe fit or not. Regardless of what they looked like.
As for my experience with helmets, well... During my military service I had to use a bit too small a uniform. What do you think my helmet felt like?